Could the 1400 kg of lithium batteries have contributed to downing of MH17 ?

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

Lithium batteries are known to be very dangerous when transported in aircraft. A UPS Boeing 747 cargo aircraft crashed near Dubai because lithium batteries in the cargo compartment catched fire. Likely because overheating due to have been exposed to the sun at the apron of Dubai before loading. The report of the Safety Board of the United Arab Emirates on this crash can be read here.

According the cargo manifest MH17 was loaded with lithim batteries. The batteries were loaded in two containers labeled AKE90446 and AKE90678.

However the DSB final report states there was a single lithium battery on the cargo manifest!

The cargo manifest released by Malaysian Airlines specifies containers marked AKE90446 and AKE90678 containing “courier goods” which were inbound from TNT.  This means courier forward the goods the Malaysian Airlines. Most likely Malaysian transported the lithium batteries on behalf of TNT Express.

The FAA conducted in 2014 a burnout test with 5000 Lithium batteries. To their astonishment they concluded this amount poses a significant risk for a catastrophic hull loss due to the release of highly explosive hydrocarbon gases. The MH17 carried the equivalent of more than 6 times this amount of Lithium accu’s, in retroperspective terms literally a flying bomb. Indeed, the MH17 most likely did not suffer hull breach after the initial missile impact but later on. The connections with the CVR and FDR are triple redundant, yet all signals stopped at once.

MH370 which disappeared for unknown reasons carried 200kg of lithium batteries. Some people believe a fire could have caused the aircraft to be in an uncontrolable state.

There is a possibility hot shrapnel penetrated the fuselage, entered the cargo belly and initiated a fire of the litium batteries. This would result in an explosion separating cockpit and business class section from the rest of the aircraft.

There are a couple of indications a fire in the cargohold could have contributed to the downing of MH17

  • There are a couple of photos of MH17 debris showing soot. Remarkable however these debris were not located near the main crash site which was the only location with heavy fire.
  • DSB does not mention in the final report that MH17 was carrying 1400 kg of lithium batteries. Instead it stated it was carrying only one battery.
  • DSB never analysed the air inside the lungs of passengers nor crew.
  • Two minutes before the FDR stopped recording, MH17 started to transmit unreliable data over the transponder. This was mentioned by avherald.com, a well respected site on aviation crashes and incidents.

    A Malaysia Airlines Boeing 777-200, registration 9M-MRD performing flight MH-17/KL-4103 from Amsterdam (Netherlands) to Kuala Lumpur (Malaysia) with 283 passengers and 15 crew, was enroute at FL330 about 20nm northeast of Donetsk (Ukraine) when the transponder data became unreliable at 13:18Z (position N48.28 E38.08) and was lost at FL330 at 13:20Z.

     

DSB report about on-board fire.

The DSB final report clearly states an on-board fire could not have caused the crash. The flight data recorder did not record any alarm about a fire or smoke in the cargo belly of the aircraft.

So how many lithium batteries were on board?

From the cargo manifest it could be concluded there was almost 1400 kg of lithium batteries on board. DSB states there was a single lithium battery on board.

The 1400 kg refers to the courier goods. Could it be that the total weight of cargo labeled as ‘courier goods’ included all kind of goods including a single lithium battery? It is hard to image DSB failed to mention there was 1400 kg of lithium batteries on board.

I have not seen images of batteries on photos taken at the crash site.

Additionally it does not seem logical to transport that large amount of  lithium batteries from Western Europe to South East Asia. Most of those batteries are made in South East Asia.

The effect of lithium batteries exploding

Two videos clearly show the danger of these batteries.

 

Below the part of the cargo manifest showing the lithium batteries as cargo. Gross weight is 1376 kg.

 

The DSB final report shows the positions of the cargo containers in the aircraft. Both containers with lithium batteries were loaded at the front cargo belly.

The position in the table Positiereferentie refers to the location of ULD containers in the belly. See this image. It shows 12L and 13L on the side of the aircraft.

This is a screenshot of a video made at the area where the cockpit was located. The AKE90678 label can be seen.

there are a couple of photos which show sooting and traces of burns.

This photo shows what looks like the cargo floor. It can be either from the forward cargo bay or from the cargo bay in the back of the aircraft. The center and back were burned after the aircradt touched the ground.

More burn spots on  this rather large part of wreckage

Here burned cables

 

Burned seats

 

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

40 Comments on Could the 1400 kg of lithium batteries have contributed to downing of MH17 ?

  1. To me this looks to be a sound theory. I think Buk would not be powerful enough to do that (and Mh-17 was likely killed by something smaller).

  2. Quick research Admin.

    Remember this discussion started with: What is the location of this part of the cockpit?

    First question: Has AKE90678 been replaced purposely behind the left pilot? Could this have been set up? I would not know.

    Second question: We must consult lithium battery specialists on the possibility of skipping the soot phase and the burning phase. Could container AKE90678 have exploded within minutes by super-hot shrapnel.

    Third question: Remind the time-line in the scenario. We only have 2 or 3 minutes to break off the cockpit from the plane. But maybe AKE90678 later broke off the next part the plane.

    http://tinyurl.com/j5hto32
    http://tinyurl.com/jb746so
    http://tinyurl.com/hee8eww
    http://tinyurl.com/hd6j8hj

    • The position number in the table of the DSB report (13R, 14L) refers to the position inside the cargo area of the aircraft.
      As seen on the image, both ULD containers were loaded in the forward belly , close to the cockpit.

      • DSB writes the following:

        A review of the cargo manifest showed no evidence of any goods that should have been classified as dangerous goods; e.g. chemicals, vehicle engines, etc. It was noted that a single lithium-ion battery was included on the cargo manifest. This item was declared as properly packaged and was therefore exempted from being classified as dangerous goods. As such, this small item was not considered relevant to the investigation.

        Well, DSB definitely must have known MH17 transported a very dangerous bomb. Is DSB hiding the fact this bomb against all safety rules was stored in the luggage compartment behind the cockpit, instead of the cargo compartment? ‘As such this item seems very relevant to the investigation.’

  3. Sorry, both were administered:

    http://tinyurl.com/jtaet9l

    Thanks, I accept the position of the lithium batteries as directly behind the pilots

  4. Thanks for putting attention to this, I’ve rearranged my photo album to give a quick summary of all the indications I’ve found for this scenario so far:
    https://www.flickr.com/photos/132949552@N05/albums/72157668614688916

    @Basic Dimension // May 21, 2016 at 8:23 pm // Reply
    I think you somehow misread the map:
    13R & 14L are references to physical locations inside the Boeing 777 cargo bay, but positions 5&6 are used for reference in the map.

  5. [DSB does not mention in the final report that MH17 was carrying 1400 kg of lithium batteries. Instead it stated it was carrying only one battery.] Maybe this is jargon for one load of lithium batteries.

    I suppose a container with lithium batteries is heavy and compact. It is an ideal load to replace to the baggage compartment if the cargo compartment becomes to heavy. But the question is how are the rules and where the limits lie. Everybody can understand 1400 kg lithium batteries can better not be placed into the luggage compartment because if that is admitted, what must be forbidden?

    So, DSB discovered the replacement and knew:

    [The FAA conducted in 2014 a burnout test with 5000 Li-accu’s. To their astonishment they concluded this amount poses a significant risk for a catastrophic hull loss due to the release of highly explosive hydrocarbon gases. The MH17 carried the equivalent of more than 6 times this amount of Lithium accu’s, in retroperspective terms literally a flying bomb.]

    So DSB was alarmed and thought, who the hell placed this amount of lithium batteries into the baggage compartment? They knew the original load administration was misleading and they wondered what Dutch party changed the format of the load. Also they hypothesized this replacement could be set up by the party which downed the MH17.

    DSB is no cover-up organization and had to report this lithium mess in full. Moreover, DSB was expected to test extremely hot fragments shot into containers with lithium batteries, because regulations of ICAO / IATA came forward only by avoiding dangers from thermal runaway caused by forms of short circuit in batteries.

    What could be the reason DSB lied about lithium batteries, which are very dangerous, which were wrongly stored, from which DSB does not know the ignition- and fire proneness, and from which DSB did not find out the responsible party? Is it to make the BUK story believable?

    The plane was lost already, that’s no question. The question is the possible relation between shippers at Schiphol and the party which shot the MH17. JIT has to interrogate TNT Express Euro Hub Belgium.

  6.   Do not forget about the turbine disk fragment near Petropawlowka by Akkermans — https://www.flickr.com/photos/jeroenakkermans/14738808331/in/album-72157645908125941/

  7. rozem,

    I think the lithium scenario is so difficult to grasp that nobody deliberately tried to put soot somewhere on the wreckage or to remove it. And if lithium was part of a criminal setup then they have not removed all the soot successfully.

    This means the requirement of conditional probability is not needed. We can freely accept as passing the test: (kinds of) squares, a foreign (rocket) part and soot somewhere on the wreckage.

    But we also know there was a big fire in the central fuselage in Hrabove. This must be excluded from a possible lithium scenario because of confounding.

    So, if soot is really found in the wreckage of the freight compartment and this is found far away from the main fuselage in Hrabove, then we might accept this as possibly caused by smoking lithium batteries.

    Here we see parts of the freight compartment falling in Petrovpavlivka:

    http://tinyurl.com/hfoj5ps
    http://tinyurl.com/jgsrk5g

    Petropavlivka – flight deck window with shrapnel damage, both forward door frames, overhead bins, engine pod parts, lower forward cargo floor.
    Petropavlivka (just north of town) – forward fuselage wall and roof and upper fuselage skin.

    In sequence:

    1: Upper Fuselage Skin.
    2: Forward Fuselage Roof.
    3: Forward Fuselage Wall.
    4: Lower Forward Cargo Floor.
    5: Flight Deck Window Cutout
    6: Overhead Bins.
    7: Left Hand Door Frame.
    8: Right Hand Door Frame.
    9: Overhead Bins.
    10: Engine Pod Parts.

    If your pictures are from Petropavlivka without fire then they could support the lithium theory. Then we possibly could have set a major step.

    https://www.flickr.com/photos/132949552@N05/sets/72157668614688916

    In my opinion parts of the freight compartment fell down in Petropavlivka near the point of detonation. This means possibly the lithium batteries caused the break up of the plane in the first place. Then in the second instance this could have caused the breaking of the cockpit which fell in Rozsypne. But remember the time-line makes the lithium scenario very difficult.

    From what I learned up to now the freight compartment might have been some time free from severe decompression and soot could have spread freely. Then we could accept the picture of the crane bird – if in the freight compartment – which has been shown extremely sharp in soot. This might possibly prove severe soot in the freight compartment before the plane broke apart. That would be a major conclusion in this investigation.

    But in your view there is a different scenario, written above your first picture: The order of sequence is:
    Fire inside => Soot => Explosion => Shrapnel => Clean up.
    Maybe, meanwhile you changed your mind because now we have an unbelievable coincidence. Following the product rule of independent events it is nearly impossible the lithium batteries exploded at about the same time as the warhead detonated. That scenario would only be viable in case lithium batteries were part of a criminal setup.

    • It is indeed nearly impossible, that’s why I believe the whole timeline of succesive events as presented by the DSB is incorrect. I did not change my mind about that. I noticed for the first time this strange cleanup of soot on this photo of the fuselage (I’ve found several more of them by now). But my analysis only involves this particular part, therefore I did not address the cause of the fire itself. I did only try to explain the story this particular photo is telling. The fire could have been started by the missile from the outside, but you’re correct to say that’s not for certain.

      • rozem, thanks for your reaction.

        I see you as an expert in the field of lithium. So you can expect more questions. You know we don’t bother at all about the analysis of DSB, though the profile of warhead 9N314M has passed the requirement of conditional probability, which can be true for more warheads.

        We ask you to think about how far you can go with us in developing an adequate scenario which is a combination of A2A and a lithium explosion.

        If you cannot address the cause of fire and it is also not a detonated warhead, then there must be a different cause which conflicts with our unacceptable coincidence.

        Somehow we ask you to think about cleaning the soot by other means than shrapnel. Since you cannot prove shrapnel I suppose. The plane fell down 10 km from the air and there might be a lot of contacts which could have cleaned the soot.

        BTW, will you please tell us verbally exactly what you mean by ‘cleaning the soot ‘ and why it has to be accomplished by shrapnel?

        • I’m not an certified expert in the field of Lithium, the sole reason I do know more than average is because this took my interest.
          “BTW, will you please tell us verbally exactly what you mean by ‘cleaning the soot ‘ and why it has to be accomplished by shrapnel?”
          I’ll give another example. First, it doesn’t have to be shrapnel. I believe soot or burned paint can also be shaken off by a strong shockwave. The next picture is from the Akkerman’s set, is this black paint you see or is it blackening as the result from of a fire? If it is not black paint and the result of a fire, why then have some hot particles cleaned up the soot and burned paint?
          https://www.flickr.com/photos/jeroenakkermans/16243673774/in/album-72157651037393928/

          • rozem, we are coming somewhere.

            Well I see a kind of black dino. Is that black paint? It looks like a fault line, a crack. Further most intriguing are the islands of white around some obstacles. I marked a lot of places, and perhaps you could clarify some of them and tell us the connection with soot. Thank you.

            Ah, I see 5 shows the hot particles cleaning burned paint or soot.

            http://tinyurl.com/zjbgna2

        • @Basic Dimension // May 22, 2016 at 9:00 pm //
          “most intriguing are the islands of white around some obstacles”
          I think you missed a far more intriguing anomaly on this picture, because it is lengthy to explain I created a new composition:
          https://www.flickr.com/photos/132949552@N05/26583332174/in/album-72157668614688916/
          “I marked a lot of places, and perhaps you could clarify some of them and tell us the connection with soot.”
          This is not connected with the soot, but if that single spot is a trace of copper, then the presence there itself is suspicious.

          • rozem, thanks for your new composition.

            I understand copper is an ingredient of lithium batteries. You are a really sharp observer.

            I inspected lots of pictures from Flickr and have come to the conclusion I am not able to distinguish between whether or not soot. But I assume soot can be found by the trained eye.

            Despite my lack of knowledge I think to be able to indicate where the lithium scenario could fail:

            – Accepting soot we must be sure it is not confounded with fire on the ground after the crash. So, from all pictures in question we must know the location.

            – But not all locations are suitable because we only have to deal with the freight compartment.

            – Parts of the freight compartment fell down in Petropavlivka.

            http://tinyurl.com/hfoj5ps
            http://tinyurl.com/jgsrk5g

            – Concerning the timeline we must consider the following:

            – The cockpit was found near Rozsypne at 2.5 km from the last FDR point which means it must have been broken from the fuselage immediately after impact. The speed of the plane was 905 km/h and the trajectory to the ground was 10 km. Then the cockpit must have been deadweight without much drag to fall to the ground so quickly.

            – The crashsite of Petropavlivka is less than 1 km from last FDR point, which fall has to be corrected for strong winds and drag.

            – If the load of lithium batteries was involved in the crash then there was no time for soot to develop and possibly no time for fire. Lithium batteries must have exploded immediately what might be a problem because the hydrocarbon gases need time to develop. Only if lithium batteries can explode immediately by super hot shrapnel the scenario will be saved. I think nobody ever tested this variant in the literature.

            – In the unlikely event the lithium batteries would have exploded within seconds after impact the forward fuselage was blown up first and fell apart on Petropavlivka and directly thereafter fell down the cockpit.

            – All information about lithium batteries is very helpful for the investigation because up till now and following Ockham’s razor we must conclude the warhead itself somehow was directly responsible for the destruction of the plane in mid air.

            – This means we might have made errors in the calculation of the point of detonation. At the moment we cannot exclude a BUK with warhead 9N314M on the basis of current information.

            – Without your information I would not have reached this conclusion so soon. As Sotilaspassi noticed earlier we must better analyze the structure and frame of the cockpit to see if a light SAM or A2A might be able to disintegrate the cockpit if fragments impacted on the right spot. That’s the most parsimonious conclusion up to now.

            http://tinyurl.com/gn32r4o
            http://tinyurl.com/zu5n2xl
            http://tinyurl.com/j5ezg6l

            Can this really break down the cockpit within a minute?

            http://tinyurl.com/hb7ufe5

          • Our problem comparing Boeing 777-200 with IL-86 might be a completely different construction. Boeing 777 is cutting edge technique of the nineties and this might have changed the construction of the frame of the cockpit. IL-86 was designed and tested by the Ilyushin design bureau in the 1970s.

            Maybe the static A-A experiment would have demolished the cockpit of a Boeing 777 completely, just like happened with the MH17.

            The Iljoesjin Il-86 is a very old concept and it weighs 164.000 kg (leeggewicht Dutch WIKI) and operational empty weight 117,500 kg (English WIKI). The MH17 Boeing 777-200 had a dry operating weight of 145015 kg (WIKI 134800 kg):

            http://tinyurl.com/h6b7utv
            http://tinyurl.com/hb7ufe5

          • A flight over the “Airplane Graveyard” at Mojave Airport in California.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RjaoR7Zk2s

            If it was not a lithium bomb and also it cannot be a BUK and we find no other cause, then it must be the construction of the Boeing 777-200 itself, which cannot stand a simple A2A missile.

            In the years planes have been made lighter and stronger in their framework with cutting edge technology.

            But this possibly means now everything depends on this frame in a delicate balance with the beams. Maybe the Boeing 777 cannot stand to lose any beam. Maybe this design is completely dependable on the integrated whole which needs all parts together. Maybe we found the Achilles heel of modern aircraft design which has not been made for the era of missile assaults.

            http://tinyurl.com/hb7ufe5

            Maybe we must visit airplane graveyards and do tests on old and newer Boeings to see which of them is more resistant to A2A or small SAM. Perhaps the MH17 is just the first in a long series of missile attacks on civil aircraft in the future. Maybe flying is far more dangerous than we thought.

          • BREAKING OFF THE COCKPIT

            The cockpit of the Boeing 777 has no self-supporting structure. In the air it needs iron bars to stay upright, just like in this model;

            http://tinyurl.com/hdb3vl3

            If we propose the lower half of the cockpit is the heaviest, then the green bars bear most of the cockpit attached to the fuselage:

            http://tinyurl.com/j92y8m6

            So, if these green beams break at the red points, the cockpit collapses with its nose a bit down. If the plain has a speed of 905 km/h there is a lot of drag and the fuselage breaks off the cockpit by pressing upwards:

            http://tinyurl.com/jtec9tj
            http://tinyurl.com/qbdbtfg
            http://tinyurl.com/hxftrxb
            http://tinyurl.com/j69s8n6
            http://tinyurl.com/j68w2r5
            http://tinyurl.com/zygnesv

          • MH17: BUK AS BATTERING RAM

            Before the fuse detonator there was the contact fuse which allowed the warhead to explode on the target. Now we already know the missile detonated just before the MH17. But remember, the new height of albert_lex and a lot of internet scientists is very critical:

            http://tinyurl.com/gtfd2uq
            http://tinyurl.com/hb28t8z

            From the wreckage we miss the cockpit completely from the upper left side just as big parts of the forward upper fuselage:

            http://tinyurl.com/j4j96uc

            We know BUK has not been developed for mega planes but for missiles and small fighter jets. We also know the newly agreed height of detonation could have severe consequences for the BUK as battering ram.

            Are we sure BUK did not detonate its fuse within 1.5 meter before the cockpit and somewhat later torpedoed the left side just before the fragments reached the upper side of the cockpit?

            http://tinyurl.com/z4rlxch

            What could be the evidence for this scenario:

            – We found no butterflies in the hull of the cockpit, and are missing butterflies in the windshields which could be caused by the slower speed of heavy fragments as bowties:

            http://tinyurl.com/q9galdq

            – Then, some early bowties could have entered the cockpit a very fraction of a millisecond later than BUK and got free entrance into the body of the captain of team A.

            – A foreign (rocket) part is found in the frame of the cockpit:

            http://tinyurl.com/je4qn6y

            – I think by stringing, the impact of fragments has been measured accurately from the supposed and corrected point of detonation. But the angle of the missile itself is relatively undetermined. The missile may have been launched somewhat more from the north of Snizhne and otherwise we do not know exactly the approach mechanism of the fuse detonator.

            Maybe it tacked the plane, approaching from the left side beneath Snizhne but possibly it made a too strong correction and turned back into the fuselage of the mega plane:

            http://tinyurl.com/jzwyw7m

            Now, for the requirement of conditional probability this all means there are no butterflies to be expected in the left side of the cockpit and in the forward upper fuselage. This simply because the battering ram was earlier or ruined the holes.

            Little squares (8x8x5) are faster than bowties (13x13x8.2) and could have been found below the left windshields. But then also we might have expected butterflies somewhat later amidst the holes on the roof from which we have only pictures.

            Last but not least and following albert_lex we cannot falsify the profile of 9N314M, while we definitely falsified 9N314 and 9N318:

            http://tinyurl.com/jbhtfau
            http://tinyurl.com/h2vg9f3

            So, maybe we must upgrade our pictures of Almaz-Antey with the coordinates of DSB:

            http://tinyurl.com/jjmxkba
            http://tinyurl.com/j3dly28
            http://tinyurl.com/hcs3ux9

            Then we also understand the following:

            Breaking off the cockpit

            The cockpit of the Boeing 777 has no self-supporting structure. In the air it needs iron bars to stay upright, just like this model which is only for illustration:

            http://tinyurl.com/hdb3vl3

            If we propose the lower half of the cockpit is the heaviest, then the green bars bear most of the cockpit attached to the fuselage:

            http://tinyurl.com/j92y8m6

            So, if these green beams break at the red points, the cockpit collapses with its nose a bit down. If the plain has a speed of 905 km/h and there is a lot of drag then the fuselage breaks off the cockpit by pressing relatively upwards:

            http://tinyurl.com/jtec9tj
            http://tinyurl.com/qbdbtfg
            http://tinyurl.com/hxftrxb
            http://tinyurl.com/j69s8n6
            http://tinyurl.com/j68w2r5
            http://tinyurl.com/zygnesv

          • IsThatSo // May 27, 2016 at 5:29 pm //

            The image you linked at http://tinyurl.com/hxftrxb indicates that its source is albert-lex.livejournal.com/68374.html. However, the image is not seen at albert-lex.livejournal.com/68374.html.

            What is the correct source of the image?

          • The original image located at lex.livejournal.com was modified by basic dimension by adding additional holes in the frame

          • IsThatSo,

            Sorry, that’s correct. I think I used an earlier image from albert_lex and only later placed fillers and bowties on it. I will correct it on the picture, thanks.

            The misleading picture comes from
            http://mh17crystalball.blogspot.com/

          • IsThatSo // May 27, 2016 at 6:29 pm //

            Okay, I can see now that you edited an image from albert_lex by adding fillers and bowties. Thank you for clarifying both the original source and the source of the additions to the image.

          • Remember, BUK missiles from Zaroshchenske (South) or from the other side (North) cannot have drilled themselves into the MH17, because at the same time their fragments had to go through the windshields. These BUKs stood in front of the plane and were perpendicular on the azimuth of the MH17.

            This means the head-on scenario from Snizhne has much more explanatory power for the downing of the MH17, because only then the BUK can serve as a battering ram. And what is the momentum of a 690 kg 9M38M1 BUK missile with a velocity of 600 m/s?

            Up till now the impact of the missile on the cockpit and the forward upper fuselage is completely unpredictable, which means part of the missile might have ricochet and have hit the left engine.

            So, only by postulating the BUK missile as a battering ram we created a completely different set of requirements for conditional probability. Now, we can tunnel our vision completely into what we have found, or better into what we have not found. We legitimized the omission of bowtie holes, we explained the rocket part in the left engine, we explained the immediate collapse of the cockpit and we explained the disappearance of all parts where the missile entered the plane. Only the pictures of the roof plates better had to show at least some bowties.

            Is there perhaps a methodological dilemma? Of course there is, because now we must first prove the BUK missile as a battering ram.

            The foreign (rocket) part found in the frame of the cockpit was only the result of the detonation, not of the battering ram. And the alleged rocket part in the engine ring can only be caused by the BUK which first must be proven as a battering ram. So we have no proof.

            And if we cannot prove the battering ram, then this is just another unproven scenario. But remember every scenario can be the impetus for the next one. Maybe the battering ram gives a launch from Snizhne more credibility. Maybe we do not need A2A and little SAMs any longer in a desperate attempt to explain this assault.

          • CONSTRUCTION KIND OF PROOF FOR LAUNCH FROM SNIZHNE

            We postulate the following premise:

            An A2A or even a BUK warhead of 70 kg is unable to separate the cockpit from a mega plane immediately after impact.

            By the way this has been proven already by Almaz-Antey with the IL-86:

            http://tinyurl.com/hgqa6f9

            The immediate separation of cockpit and fuselage can be backed up by the following facts. We can calculate exactly the path to the ground of the cockpit from the following pictures. This shows us the cockpit must have been separated from the fuselage instantly:

            http://tinyurl.com/hfoj5ps
            http://tinyurl.com/jgsrk5g

            – The cockpit was found near Rozsypne AT 2.5 KM FROM the last FDR point which means it must have been broken from the fuselage immediately after impact. The speed of the plane was 905 km/h and the trajectory to the ground was 10 km. Then the cockpit must have been fallen as deadweight without much drag to the ground instantly.

            – The crashsite of Petropavlivka is LESS THEN 1 km from last FDR point, which fall has to be corrected for strong winds and drag. But after a missile impact into the cockpit we never expect the forward fuselage to fall down immediately:

            Petropavlivka – flight deck window with shrapnel damage, both forward door frames, overhead bins, engine pod parts, lower forward cargo floor.

            Petropavlivka (just north of town) – forward fuselage wall and roof and upper fuselage skin.

            In sequence:

            1: Upper Fuselage Skin.
            2: Forward Fuselage Roof.
            3: Forward Fuselage Wall.
            4: Lower Forward Cargo Floor.
            5: Flight Deck Window Cutout
            6: Overhead Bins.
            7: Left Hand Door Frame.
            8: Right Hand Door Frame.
            9: Overhead Bins.
            10: Engine Pod Parts.

            Also we know it must be seen as totally impossible any missile can turn off all communication from this mega plane in 20 milliseconds:

            http://tinyurl.com/josbev4

            Theoretically, only the physical confrontation between a BUK of 690 kg with a velocity of 600 m/s and the MH17 is able to establish these facts. Lighter SAM and A2A are excluded because they cannot generate enough forward momentum.

            The takeoff weight of the MH17 at Schiphol was 278691 kg and velocity was 905 km/h:

            http://tinyurl.com/h6b7utv

            If we can prove the power needed to separate the cockpit from the fuselage physically can be brought up only by BUK as a battering ram, then we have set a major step in making acceptable a BUK must have been launched from Snizhne, since no other launch site can combine fragments shot straight through the windshields and the missile successively torpedoing the plane.

          • IsThatSo // May 28, 2016 at 12:05 pm //

            If a missile as massive as a Buk torpedoed MH17 as you have described, then would you expect to find physical evidence such as rocket debris in the bodies of the passengers?

          • IsThatSo // May 28, 2016 at 12:05 pm //

            Yes, indeed, but it depends on where the missile impacted the Boeing. We need to find the weakest part of the construction where it can break off the cockpit easily from the fuselage. That must be the place. I do not know if there were any passengers. Apparently not. But the missile itself did not explode; hence the parts did not necessarily spread through the victims.

            And remember, just where the missile allegedly impacted, all cockpit and forward fuselage is gone, and that is very weird. This would not happen normally. And indeed, if those parts of the wreckage would ever be found also we found the missile.

            So, our new complot theory is the missile must have been removed by the party which did not want investigators to explore the crashsite. Yes, the party who shot down the MH17 must have cleared the scene from the missile. That’s why it took them half a year. Of course, and then they placed the detonation point so absurd high that the public got the impression this missile disappeared in nowhere’s land.

          • Was this the fight for the remains of the BUK?

            http://tinyurl.com/hdsjo2s

            http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/the-safety-of-the-crashsite/

            Malaysia government negotiated with the rebels and because of that the black boxes were handed over. The Malaysia PM told on CNN how he personally negotiated with the rebels.
            All the time there were no shellings, no granades and no shootings nearby. The Ukraine army was far away.
            After the bodies were removed investigators wanted to enter the crash site. Both the Dutch and Australian Air Force flew in equipment to research the cause of the crash. Fighting then started. Many times it was not possible to enter the crash site. The OSCE had to negotitate with both rebels and Ukraine. Sometimes they managed to get access to the crash site.

            Around July 26 heavy fighting started between Ukraine forces and the rebels. Ukraine wanted to occupy the crashsite. See Telegraaf. Nu.NL

            The situation at July 28. Ukraine Army starts to fight in a westerly direction to get closer to the crashsite. Max Seddon is a well informed journalist. He writes in this post at Buzzfeed:

            Thanks to a new Ukrainian offensive, the crash site is now inaccessible to international experts.
            This video was recorded at the end of July. It shows the Ukraine army active north of the crashsite. This blogpost explains the route of the convoy seen in the video.

            At July 30 Australian reporter Stephen McDonell explains on tv the situation. He clearly states the fighting has intensified. Ukraine forces believe the world is at their hands and want to force a way into the crash site.

            For a couple of days investigations in a limited area were possible. Many locations where debris were found were not accessible. Rebels did not allow access. The red parts on this map (toegang geweigerd) were not allowed to be entered by the investigation team. The map is part of a dedicated website of the Dutch government.

            At August 7 Ukraine government suspends ceasefire at MH17 crash site after recovery mission halted (Reuters)

            At August 8 The UN Security Council failed to adopt a resolution on reinstating the ceasefire at the site of the Malaysian Airlines plane crash in eastern Ukraine after Russia’s draft was blocked by Western states.

          • WHO HIDES THE COCKPIT AND THE FORWARD FUSELAGE?

            [Land where cockpit was found was cordoned off by separatists for two days]

            [Officials investigating the incident believe large parts of the cockpit and every part of the fuselage were carried off questioning why such important pieces of evidence were tampered with.]

            Evicence-tampering on an industrial scale
            ( Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott)

            http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/legitimate-questions-and-answers/

            In the same interview Michael Bociurkiw said something else interesting.
            Going almost daily to the cockpit scene that has been at its stark the way in terms how it has been changed. When we first arrived there again a horrifying substantion of death the cockpit appears to have slammed down to earth. It was pretty much intact. Over the days we have seen that the piece of cockpit kind of spread out like this (spreading out gesture). Day two I believe it was there were actually many men hacking into with a power saw. They could have been actively in body recovery or human remains recovery we do not know. But even since then I would say in the last three days it has been spread out even more.

            http://tinyurl.com/guxmly9

            7. Why were people using power saws cutting large parts of the aircraft?
            Many reports in the press of uniformed people cutting the aircraft with heavy equipment. Parts are reported to have been removed. Some parts of the aircraft were used as a check point by the rebels. A reason could be the rescue team were looking for bodies. Another reason could be to get rid of evidence. More on this here. and on the Daily Mail. ABC news has a video.

            [Two days ago they observed that the cockpit section and part of first class were being cut into with a diesel power saw by uniformed men.]

            “After the crime comes the cover-up,” Australian prime minister Abbott was quoted by the Guardian as saying.

            A touching picture:

            http://tinyurl.com/h6azc9r

          • I have reached the conclusion that we don’t know a missile which is able to separate the cockpit from a huge passenger plane as the Boeing-777 within seconds. The latter is a fact!

            Even the 70 kg warhead of a BUK will not succeed. To me it seems it is only the physical power of the momentum of a very heavy missile in combination with its warhead that could have split the cockpit from the fuselage instantly. Then a BUK of 690 kg is the only candidate:

            http://tinyurl.com/h5v7twa

            We have circumstantial evidence which proves and disproves BUK.

            For example a detonation point of 1.6-1.8 meters from the cockpit must give a much more saturated fragmentary pattern on the wreckage if a BUK:

            http://tinyurl.com/z5hksdu

            On the other hand, we are sure an A2A or a small SAM definitely will not separate the cockpit.

            And if I must choose between the diluted pattern of fragments or the split cockpit, then I would decide a BUK. The problem is I cannot prove a BUK split the cockpit. Not yet, but I want JIT to interrogate these 5 identifiable men in Donetsk:

            http://tinyurl.com/guxmly9

            7. Why were people using power saws cutting large parts of the aircraft?
            Many reports in the press of uniformed people cutting the aircraft with heavy equipment. Parts are reported to have been removed. Some parts of the aircraft were used as a check point by the rebels. A reason could be the rescue team were looking for bodies. Another reason could be to get rid of evidence. More on this here. and on the Daily Mail. ABC news has a video.

            [Two days ago they observed that the COCKPIT SECTION AND PART OF THE FIRST CLASS were being cut into with a diesel power saw by uniformed men.]

            “After the crime comes the cover-up,” Australian prime minister Abbott was quoted by the Guardian as saying.

            http://tinyurl.com/hdsjo2s

            So remember, in case someone proves an A2A or a small warhead, he cannot prove the separation of the cockpit from the fuselage in a few seconds.

          • Liane Theuer // June 1, 2016 at 7:05 pm //

            Basic – to your point 7 :
            If I would be one of the 5 men you presented with a photo, I would spit on you for your „could be to get rid of evidence“.
            These men did a great job in recovering the bodies.
            Only two bodies are missed within the huge desaster area. And most of the bodies were recovered within a few days.
            They even searched with dogs. But mostly it was not necessary, because you could smell the body parts under the wreckage.
            The use of power saws : There are a lot of pictures with the OSCE or the MH17 rescue team close to workers with chainsaws.
            Would you in this case also insinuate they wanted „to get rid of evidence“ ?
            Be fair and use your common sense.

          • Liane,

            This is a criminal investigation and „could be to get rid of evidence“ are not my words. I am fair and use my common sense. It is not the use of the chainsaws but the removal of just those parts of the wreckage wherein the BUK might have disappeared. If the wreckage was untouched and left on the crash site I had no case.

            Well okay, then let those people explain JIT their helpful activities on their own initiative and let the separatists explain where the missing parts of the cockpit and the forward fuselage disappeared. My theory is they might have hidden this wreckage because of the remains of BUK. Beware, I do not claim that the separatists have fired a BUK. In those days nobody had a clue.

            Though I understand your feelings and I do admire your reaction, this is an attitude I simply cannot afford. I must be totally entitled to have an amoral approach to any possible perpetrator in this investigation. I am an independent scientist and have no affiliations with the Dutch, the Ukrainians, the separatists, the Russians or anybody. Nobody should criminalize my suspicions against people for then I would not be impartial any longer. So, if the separatists are really innocent, fine and let them show the remains of the cockpit and the forward fuselage.

            http://tinyurl.com/hfoj5ps
            http://tinyurl.com/z4xjn4v

          • The possibly lowered speed of the MH17

            The takeoff weight of the MH17 at Schiphol was 278691 kg and its velocity was 905 km/h. The mass of the BUK was about 690 kg with a velocity of 600 m/s.

            Questions:

            – What was their relative velocity just before the crash?

            – In case BUK torpedoed the MH17, what was the new velocity of the MH17, 3 seconds after the crash? I suppose the BUK stopped in front of STA655 or ended at STA888/909.

            If BUK really has torpedoed the MH17 and would have lowered its velocity then this has consequences for the calculation of the trajectory of the wreckage to the ground.

            http://tinyurl.com/h9go6k7
            http://tinyurl.com/jev6gkp
            http://tinyurl.com/j2lef3p
            http://tinyurl.com/z4xjn4v
            http://tinyurl.com/hdsjo2s

  8. I do not remember I have seen anything had burned in the forward cargo bay.

    If something exploded, it was the Boeing777 battery. But no indications that anything was broken by internal explosion. Explosion was outside of the plane.

  9. Centrifugal and centripetal powers downed the MH17

    Almaz-Antey used the coordinates of DSB to simulate the impact of fragments in a static experiment. They used only centripetal forces and made impact entry holes on the IL-86:

    http://tinyurl.com/jcsda2f

    Would they have done a dynamic experiment they could have steered the BUK with 600 m/s through the cockpit:

    http://tinyurl.com/je9dbzf

    Then, within the plane the BUK would behave as a bomb without explosion but with enormous centrifugal power. So, all people who thought it must have been a bomb are partially right: it was a centrifugal force but only after centripetal fragments made mostly
    entry holes.

    What we see is that the static experiment of Almaz-Antey falsified the DSB hypothesis completely. It was not the centripetal force of BUK fragments of warhead 9N314M which disintegrated the MH17 within 3 seconds. Noway DSB!

    It must have been centrifugal powers from the BUK itself as its momentum of 690 kg times its velocity of 600 m/s which rolled out enormous forces on the internal structure of the MH17. That’s why the cockpit of the IL-86 remained completely intact after the impact of 9N314M.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.


*